Last week, we covered the comedy of errors that played out in the Florida courtroom of Judge Mary Scriven, where it became clear that there were no attorneys willing to put their reputations at risk by associating themselves with the porn trolling firm Prenda Law. A local Florida attorney told Judge Scriven that he had been brought into the case by Prenda, but now wanted out of the case. Prenda itself denied any involvement in the case.

John Steele, an Illinois lawyer with longstanding ties to Prenda, happened to be in the audience at the hearing. But he also told Judge Scriven he had nothing to do with the case. An exasperated Judge Scriven threw out the case and threatened to sanction Prenda for its "lack of candor."

Now the same sketchy law firm is facing fresh charges of misconduct, this time in Minnesota. The federal courts in Minnesota are currently hearing a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by a firm called AF Holdings. A Minnesota man named Alan Cooper says that AF Holdings is really a shell company set up by Prenda. And Cooper says they've been listing him as the firm's CEO without his knowledge or consent.

Smoke and mirrors

"AF Holdings" filed a lawsuit in Minnesota federal court on October 19, charging a "John Doe" Internet user with distributing the pornographic film "Popular Demand" on BitTorrent. The firm says it is a "limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis."

Paul Godfread, an attorney for Alan Cooper, sent a letter to the judge overseeing the case on November 29. In it, he explains that Cooper acts as a caretaker for property Steele owns in Minnesota. According to Cooper, Steele has "on numerous occasions bragged to [Cooper] about a plan involving massive copyright litigation." Steele told Cooper to call him if anyone asked Cooper about corporations involved in the litigation. Cooper says he became suspicious and confronted Steele about this strange request, but Steele said not to worry about it.

Cooper became even more alarmed when he learned about copyright lawsuits being filed by a company called AF Holdings that happened to have a CEO named Alan Cooper. Fearing he might get in legal trouble, Cooper retained Godfread, who approached AF Holdings to be sure that it wasn't just a coincidence that AF Holdings happened to have a CEO with Cooper's name.

He wasn't able to reach AF Holdings, but Godfread's calls did trigger a reaction from Steele. Within an hour, he called Cooper and demanded to know if Cooper had been talking to attorneys in Minnesota. And that's just one of the many reasons, detailed in Godfread's letter, to believe that Steele, Prenda Law, and AF Holdings are closely connected. Godfread uncovered another Steele-affiliated Nevis-based shell company, called Ingenuity 13, that also happens to have a CEO named Alan Cooper.

Godfread eventually received a response from Paul Duffy, a Prenda Law attorney, indicating that AF Holdings wasn't planning to answer his questions about the identity of their CEO. So Godfread had little choice but to intervene in the lawsuit. "My client would like certainty that his identity is not being used without his knowledge and against his will as the would be CEO of AF Holdings, LLC or as a manager of Ingenuity 13, LLC," Godfread wrote to the court.

Michael Dugas, an attorney for AF Holdings, replied to Godfread's letter on Monday. "Godfread accuses AF Holdings LLC of being a sham corporation and fraudulently holding his client out as its CEO," Dugas wrote. "Both of these accusations are categorically false."

Yet strangely, Dugas did not take the obvious step of explaining who is the CEO of AF Holdings. If AF Holdings really does have a different Alan Cooper as its CEO, that should be easy enough to prove. But Dugas produced no evidence that Cooper's fears are unfounded.

The court has not yet responded to Godfread's letter. But we predict it'll be great fun when it does.

The trials and tribulations of these porn extortion rackets might end up setting up handy precedent for those accused of more mundane file sharing. I can only hope that the taint cast on the entire enterprise from yahoos like Steele will make judges extremely wary of similar lawsuits in the future.

Other possible roadblocks: This summer, a class action lawsuit popped up in Kentucky accusing a bunch of porn companies of racketeering, fraud and defamation for their attempts to get people to pay for illegal downloads. Steele says he’s unconcerned. Eight state attorneys general have called him about extortion claims. “Once I explain, they’re reassured,” he says.

God god, didn't Steele ever watch The Wire? Or any show with any sort of organized crime? At the very, very least, you use somebody that you can trust inside and out, and they get some benefit for it, too. That way, when some shit like this hits the fan, you don't have [i]your own guy[/] suing you. Real organized crime gets guys taking long stretches of prison and not talking. This douchebag gets sued by the caretaker of one of his own properties because he was too much of an idiot to find someone to put on the inside of the scam.

Steele seems to be a particularly unique combination of pathologically greedy and incredibly stupid.

Anyone want to bet that Steele is frantically looking for someone else name Alan Cooper, willing to spend a day in court and commit some minor perjury?

I see that they did organize this AF Holdings offshore. Our company is registered in most states, and the vast majority require us to provide some degree of personal ID for our officers. We're always annoyed when they demand the SSNs of our officers, since it seems like such a such an invasion of privacy. But with yahoos like this setting up shell companies, I can see the need now.

I have a feeling this jerk knows enough law to keep himself out of jail and probably in business for some time (even if it's with another trolling scam), sadly.There is another solution...a "personal visit" by some really pissed off victims, carrying "construction material" like short pieces of pipe and the like. (Only kidding. )

Not giving porn copyright protection seems like a very good idea now...

except they would shift back to Uwe Bolle films to troll for.

The solution would be the courts demanding more evidence, making them file single cases, and limiting the claims for "damages" to something realistic.It would also be nice to see many of these trolls held accountable for their claims and damages awarded to innocent people who paid out of fear of having their name attached to scandalous titles or because a lawyer told them they were responsible because they pay a bill not because they did anything wrong.

Not giving porn copyright protection seems like a very good idea now...

Seriously, copyright is not a bad thing. It lets people make a living doing things that otherwise would just be taken from them without proper compensation.

Its fine that porn is covered by copyright. The problem is that these guys are trying to abuse the system. But that doesn't mean that porn shouldn't be covered by copyright; it means these guys need to be sanctioned. Using the legal system to harass people is hardly new.

Not giving porn copyright protection seems like a very good idea now...

Seriously, copyright is not a bad thing. It lets people make a living doing things that otherwise would just be taken from them without proper compensation.

Its fine that porn is covered by copyright. The problem is that these guys are trying to abuse the system. But that doesn't mean that porn shouldn't be covered by copyright; it means these guys need to be sanctioned. Using the legal system to harass people is hardly new.

Technically, the problem isn't porn companies trying to abuse the system. It's lawyers trying to abuse the system. Lawyers likely approached major porn makers about doing something about copyright infringement, in exchange for a cut of settlements. All the porn companies do is sign a contract, and every now and then, they get some cash from these scummy lawyers. As far as they're concerned, it's free money.

On a more serious note, copyright is a bad thing, as are patents. You may want to try Against Intellectual Monopoly (and no, it is not copyrighted - yes, the complete paper is on the web). Abolish copyrights (seventy years after death!) and patents, and let the companies that are currently benefiting so much actually compete in a marketplace.

Steele's years-long abuse and manipulation of the legal system has incurred far more costs for society than any truckload of copyright infringements, so why isn't he in jail yet?

Since getting reprimanded by the Court he's been really cautious to avoid getting involved "himself," so as to prevent his own disbarment. At some point these state bar associations are going to have to wake up and realize he's abusing the trust and faith they put into him. Wholesale identity theft seems like a good place to start.

The trials and tribulations of these porn extortion rackets might end up setting up handy precedent for those accused of more mundane file sharing. I can only hope that the taint cast on the entire enterprise from yahoos like Steele will make judges extremely wary of similar lawsuits in the future.

On a more serious note, copyright is a bad thing, as are patents. You may want to try Against Intellectual Monopoly (and no, it is not copyrighted - yes, the complete paper is on the web). Abolish copyrights (seventy years after death!) and patents, and let the companies that are currently benefiting so much actually compete in a marketplace.

(Edited for clarity).[/quote]Copyright is not a bad thing, and the fact an economist has written a theoretical justification for it (which is very weak in a lot of ways) doesn't mean much.

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.